X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 22:42:41 -0700 From: Brian Inglis Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: DJGPP port of GNU gzip-1.3.5 uploaded In-reply-to: <01c4e854$Blat.v2.2.2$09be9b80@zahav.net.il> To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Message-id: Organization: Systematic Software MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii References: <1103476827 DOT 41c5b85b491aa AT webmail DOT wilkes DOT edu> <200412191748 DOT iBJHmmaM005825 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <01c4e604$Blat.v2.2.2$63db7180 AT zahav DOT net DOT il> <38obs0ddbi3hjj9rj1753em0fi7qcm20or AT 4ax DOT com> <01c4e718$Blat.v2.2.2$633278e0 AT zahav DOT net DOT il> <200412211534 DOT iBLFYXii019390 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <01c4e797$Blat.v2.2.2$6714a260 AT zahav DOT net DOT il> <01c4e854$Blat.v2.2.2$09be9b80 AT zahav DOT net DOT il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id iBN5gkLo013897 Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 20:27:28 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 22:03:05 -0700 >> From: Brian Inglis >> >> As a first approx, embed the 2.04 symlink() routine, renamed to >> softlink(), into the 2.03 symlink() module, and call softlink() where >> the 2.03 symlink() returns EXDEV. > >In addition to this, there's this snippet at the end of `symlink' from >v2.03: > > if (spawnlp (P_WAIT, STUBIFY, STUBIFY, "-g", dest_abs, (char *)0) > || spawnlp (P_WAIT, STUBEDIT, STUBEDIT, dest_abs, ropt, (char *)0)) > return -1; > >Should we create a v2.04 style symlink if stubify and/or stubedit >failed in this fragment? I don't know. I guess some research into the failure modes and return codes of stubify and stubedit are in order. >Also, there were discussions in the past (check the archives of this >list) about some tricky situations with using the stub-style symlinks. >It would be nice to make sure those issues are covered. Always good to have something new to read over Xmas. >Finally, please make sure the code you suggest allows to make a v2.04 >style symlink foo -> bar when there's both bar and bar.exe in that >directory. The intermingling of 2.03 and 2.04 symlinks is looking more interesting (as in the Chinese curse!)